- Apr 28, 2012
- SF Bay area, CA
- Real Name
Why shoot m4/3 if you just want a low light kit with two heavy zooms? FF has had that covered since the beginning. A7III with a double f2.8 zoom kit is already better in low light than m4/3's best with f1.7.
With a couple of these huge f1.7 primes that you wished for it's still smaller and lighter? I don't know. And I would expect them to be $2000+ each, so cost isn't working for us either.
I know the advantage of m4/3 well, but lenses like this really seem to cross the line into territory where it no longer makes a lot of sense (to me at least!).
You're making a fair point. I'm already happily juggling both full frame and mu-4/3 systems. This new Panasonic lens is another one that is basically as big and heavy as a full frame lens; it will have to be really good for me to spring for it. But I think it might be a single lens that approaches prime level quality at all focal lengths, and covering basically all my "short" lens needs with micro-4/3. It would still be a much lighter option than my full frame system plus 2 or more prime lenses (which I currently have). And so much more convenient not having to switch lenses as often. As Swifty said, it's hard to find an equivalent full frame lens out there covering 20-50mm.Tamron's got a 17-35/35-150 f2.8-4 pair coming out. Relatively compact and theoretically like 8.5-18/18-75 f1.4-2 on m4/3.
I'm not trying to convert anyone to FF. I just think that for people who are interested in exotic m4/3 glass, it could be a more logical choice.